Ever since writing this article in 1996, I've been concerned that G&L people might demand marriage but then neglect it. More recently, some SSM opponents have claimed this is exactly what happens. From the Williams Institute at UCLA, here's welcome evidence that they're wrong (PDF format), at least so far. Study co-author Gary Gates summarizes:
We analyze data from states that have extended legal recognition to same-sex couples. We show that same-sex couples want and use these new legal statuses. Furthermore, they react more enthusiastically when marriage is possible. More than 40% of same-sex couples have formed legal unions in states where such recognition is available. Same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. In the first year that marriage was offered in Massachusetts, 37% of same-sex couples there married. In states that offered civil unions, only 12% of same-sex couples took advantage of this status in the first year and only 10% did so in states with domestic partnership registries.
It takes generations to establish a culture of marriage in a social milieu where marriage has always been not just illegal but inconceivable. Low take-up rates, by themselves, would not vitiate the case for SSM. But it is good to know that gay culture is already responding to this powerfully life-enhancing institution.
9 Comments for “Yep, Gays Are the Marrying Kind”
posted by Throbert McGee on
It takes generations to establish a culture of marriage in a social milieu where marriage has always been not just illegal but inconceivable.
For reals?! In a subculture that is relentlessly self-congratulatory on the ability of its members to recognize and adopt cutting-edge trends faster than the stodgy ol’ breeders do, it takes generations to establish a new culture?
And pardon me for saying that Rauch’s “in a social milieu” language sounds suspiciously like “don’t blame me, it’s society’s fault!”
posted by Pat on
For reals?! In a subculture that is relentlessly self-congratulatory on the ability of its members to recognize and adopt cutting-edge trends faster than the stodgy ol’ breeders do, it takes generations to establish a new culture?
Yes. What a small percentage says about a group as whole is not relevant many times.
And pardon me for saying that Rauch’s “in a social milieu” language sounds suspiciously like “don’t blame me, it’s society’s fault!”
I can’t read the author’s mind, but I’ll say that there’s a lot of fault to go around. And some of the burden does belong on society. It’s not just the irresponsible gay persons that need to change their behavior. For starters, parents who excoriate their gay children simply for being gay shoulder the blame for their irresponsible behavior too.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s not just the irresponsible gay persons that need to change their behavior. For starters, parents who excoriate their gay children simply for being gay shoulder the blame for their irresponsible behavior too.
How convenient. When you end up getting and spreading HIV, you aren’t responsible; it’s because Mommy and Daddy are bad people.
Mighty nice for the gay community, too; it can blame other people rather than having to commit the cardinal sin of actually criticizing and holding responsible other gays for their behavior — which, of course, you have to avoid, because it would make you self-loathing and a homophobe if you did it.
Very Freudian.
posted by Throbert McGee on
For starters, parents who excoriate their gay children simply for being gay shoulder the blame for their irresponsible behavior too.
(1) In contexts like this, I think it would make a lot more sense to say “their gay sons and daughters” — to avoid infantilizing gay people by conflating “child as in offspring” with “child as in minor.”
(2) Parents who excoriate their sons and daughters simply for being gay certainly must shoulder some blame for contributing to the low self-esteem that some gay people live with. But adults with poor self-esteem are still free moral agents who must shoulder ALL the MORAL responsibility for their own freely made decisions.
posted by Pat on
How convenient. When you end up getting and spreading HIV, you aren’t responsible; it’s because Mommy and Daddy are bad people.
NDT, not as convenient as letting parents (i.e., the adults in this situation) getting off the hook for their irresponsible behavior.
Mighty nice for the gay community, too; it can blame other people rather than having to commit the cardinal sin of actually criticizing and holding responsible other gays for their behavior — which, of course, you have to avoid, because it would make you self-loathing and a homophobe if you did it.
That’s nice, but you’re now arguing against some point I never made. Try again.
Very strawmanish. (No fancy link, just google “strawman” if necessary)
(1) In contexts like this, I think it would make a lot more sense to say “their gay sons and daughters” — to avoid infantilizing gay people by conflating “child as in offspring” with “child as in minor.”
Throbert, good point. I did mean “child as in minor” in my post above.
(2) Parents who excoriate their sons and daughters simply for being gay certainly must shoulder some blame for contributing to the low self-esteem that some gay people live with. But adults with poor self-esteem are still free moral agents who must shoulder ALL the MORAL responsibility for their own freely made decisions.
I mostly agree with what you are saying here. Any disagreement is perhaps just by degree of responsibility. Any person who is an adult, no matter what circumstances they had as a child, has to do whatever they can to make the right decisions, seek therapy or whatever if necessary, if they have to, to avoid irresponsible, destructive behavior. I understand, at that point, blaming mommy and daddy does not help, and I would NEVER tell this person that it’s okay to be irresponsible because their parents dropped the ball big time. However, because of the irresponsible behavior of the parents, it’s clearly more likely that it leads to children growing up as adults with destructive behaviors. The least these parents can do is recognize how grossly wrong and potentially harmful they were and encourage other parents to not engage in the same irresponsible manner with their gay sons and daughters whenever possible.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s nice, but you’re now arguing against some point I never made.
The “you” in the statement in question can be clarified by replacing it with “gay person”.
NDT, not as convenient as letting parents (i.e., the adults in this situation) getting off the hook for their irresponsible behavior.
So much for this.
Any person who is an adult, no matter what circumstances they had as a child, has to do whatever they can to make the right decisions, seek therapy or whatever if necessary, if they have to, to avoid irresponsible, destructive behavior.
Furthermore, Pat, the parents are not using drugs, having promiscuous sex, and spreading HIV; the gay person who chooses to use drugs and chooses to have promiscuous sex is spreading HIV.
He can blame mommy and daddy all he wants, and you can enable that behavior all you want, but it doesn’t change whose choices are resulting in it. All it does is shift blame away from someone who gay people cannot criticize — another gay person — onto someone who it is socially-acceptable to criticize. Since gay people cannot state that another gay person’s behavior is irresponsible and wrong without being branded “homophobic” and “self-loathing”, that is all projected onto others.
There is a very simple and obvious symptom of why the HIV/AIDS epidemic has not only persisted, but started to grow again among gay people; it is more socially-acceptable and more often done among gays to criticize parents they have never met and of whose motivations they have no idea rather than gays who are quite clearly making the choice to have irresponsible and promiscuous sex.
posted by Pat on
The “you” in the statement in question can be clarified by replacing it with “gay person”.
NDT, no one else is making straw man arguments to my points. So far, it’s just you.
Furthermore, Pat, the parents are not using drugs, having promiscuous sex, and spreading HIV; the gay person who chooses to use drugs and chooses to have promiscuous sex is spreading HIV.
I never argued that these irresponsible parents engaged in such behaviors. And just because they don’t does not absolve them from the irresponsible behaviors these parents do engage in. They are the one that’s choosing to excoriate their gay children.
He can blame mommy and daddy all he wants, and you can enable that behavior all you want, but it doesn’t change whose choices are resulting in it.
I don’t know whose point you’re countering in this post, but it isn’t mine. I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, that gay men are responsible for their actions. We are in complete agreement there. But this does NOT absolve irresponsible behavior by the parents. It appears that YOU are enabling irresponsible behavior, not me. You’re the one that’s shifting your own enabling to me.
All it does is shift blame away from someone who gay people cannot criticize — another gay person — onto someone who it is socially-acceptable to criticize.
Once again, you’re countering a point I’ve never made. I’ve criticized irresponsible gay persons. And I didn’t know it’s socially acceptable to criticize parents. But whatever, I’m criticizing ALL those who behave irresponsibly.
Since gay people cannot state that another gay person’s behavior is irresponsible and wrong without being branded “homophobic” and “self-loathing”, that is all projected onto others.
I’m sure that’s true for some gay people. But once again, you’re countering a point I never made.
There is a very simple and obvious symptom of why the HIV/AIDS epidemic has not only persisted, but started to grow again among gay people; it is more socially-acceptable and more often done among gays to criticize parents they have never met and of whose motivations they have no idea rather than gays who are quite clearly making the choice to have irresponsible and promiscuous sex.
I know NDT. You’ve made it quite clear that you’re only interested in putting buckets on a leaking roof. So am I, but I’m also interested in fixing the roof. Your insistence that my criticism of irresponsible parents equals no criticism of irresponsible gay adults is false.
I think of the Peanuts shtick where Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown when he tries to kick it. You would be the one saying, “Well, Charlie Brown was the one that fell down. All Lucy did was pull the ball away. She’s not the one that fell down. So it’s all Charlie Brown’s fault. And anyone who says Lucy is also to blame is just enabling Charlie Brown.”
posted by Pat on
The “you” in the statement in question can be clarified by replacing it with “gay person”.
NDT, no one else is making straw man arguments to my points. So far, it’s just you.
Oops, NDT. I initially misunderstood the “you” you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying. Fair enough. But why bring up that point when trying to counter what my point is? I’m only arguing my position, not the position of what you perceive the opinion of the majority of the gay community is.
If someone wants to absolve gay persons of irresponsibility, that’s that person’s position, not mine.
posted by Richard II on
I was actually impressed, more or less, by what Neil Patrick Harris said in some interview where he came out in favor of monogamy (not the wood).
I have never really been a big fan of his, and have not really seen the recent tv show that he stars in, but his comments certainly increased my feeling of his moral and ethical compass, not always an easy thing to do with celebrities.